Gavin's Trumpet

John articulates his views in a concise and clear cut manner, as one would expect from a lawyer. He takes it in two sections, law and facts. He believes that any case brought against me would not win. He concludes:

Bottom line: Gavin’s statements appear to be true. Usually one bullet is sufficient to kill the fish in the barrel, and that should do it. If Gavin wants to fire a few more, he could point out that even if it’s false, I didn’t know that it was (in fact, there is a lot of stuff online that appears to confirm Gavin’s statements); even if I knew it was false, you could never prove I knew that; even if you could prove I more likely than not knew it, you can’t prove clearly and convincingly that I knew it was false . . . .

What about malice? The only malice I see on Gavin’s site is from Gray’s attorneymaybe he should look up “malicious prosecution.”

I would like to thank John for his summing up of the situation. It is a great read for any bloggers that might find themselves in this situation in the future.

2 Responses to Gavin's Trumpet

As a lawyer myself, I agree with John that the case against Given (for malicious prosecution) is better than the case against Gavin!!! Again, as I wrote below, I think Given likely has ulterior motives here — he can get some local press at least (bad press works just as well as god press: ask Paris Hilton) and then dump the case like a hot potato.

I’m still stunned that (even if you have to plow through three links to get to it) Gray has the gall to put on his web site that Columbia Pacific University was a “respected” institution at the time he graduated (in 1982). How dumb does he think people are? It was never respected by anyone whose opinion mattered about such things. It was “respected” only by the hucksters who ponied up their money to get their degrees in snake oil selling, because that’s what a lot of them ended up doing. I’d be curious to know what percentage of the graduates of that school were subsequently convicted of breaking various white collar laws or worse. Perhaps Gray thinks it was respected because some of the hucksters who graduated from Columbia Pacific became millionaires or teachers. Where do they teach? Why, many of them went on to teach at Columbia Pacific of all places. Others like “William Paul Emmerling,” a graduate from 1980 (when CPU was presumably even more respectable than it was in 1982) started their own schools whose accredidation is obscure, to say the least.